Linux – ZONE_NORMAL and it’s association with Kernel/User-pages

Is Kernel space used when Kernel is executing on the behalf of the user program i.e. System Call? Or is it the address space for all the Kernel threads (for example scheduler)?

Yes and yes.

Before we go any further, we should state this about memory.

Memory get's divided into two distinct areas:

• The user space, which is a set of locations where normal user processes run (i.e everything other than the kernel). The role of the kernel is to manage applications running in this space from messing with each other, and the machine.
• The kernel space, which is the location where the code of the kernel is stored, and executes under.

Processes running under the user space have access only to a limited part of memory, whereas the kernel has access to all of the memory. Processes running in user space also don't have access to the kernel space. User space processes can only access a small part of the kernel via an interface exposed by the kernel - the system calls. If a process performs a system call, a software interrupt is sent to the kernel, which then dispatches the appropriate interrupt handler and continues its work after the handler has finished.

Kernel space code has the property to run in "kernel mode", which (in your typical desktop -x86- computer) is what you call code that executes under ring 0. Typically in x86 architecture, there are 4 rings of protection. Ring 0 (kernel mode), Ring 1 (may be used by virtual machine hypervisors or drivers), Ring 2 (may be used by drivers, I am not so sure about that though). Ring 3 is what typical applications run under. It is the least privileged ring, and applications running on it have access to a subset of the processor's instructions. Ring 0 (kernel space) is the most privileged ring, and has access to all of the machine's instructions. For example to this, a "plain" application (like a browser) can not use x86 assembly instructions lgdt to load the global descriptor table or hlt to halt a processor.

If it is the first one, than does it mean that normal user program cannot have more than 3GB of memory (if the division is 3GB + 1GB)? Also, in that case how can kernel use High Memory, because to what virtual memory address will the pages from high memory be mapped to, as 1GB of kernel space will be logically mapped?

For an answer to this, please refer to the excellent answer by wag here

In the case of Linux, a task (kernel internal idea of a thread; threads can share resources, like memory and open files; some run only inside the kernel) can run in userland, or (it's thread of execution) can transfer into the kernel (and back) to execute a system call. A user thread can be highjacked temporarily to execute an interrupt (but that isn't really that thread running).

That a process is a "system process" or a regular user process is completely irrelevant in Unix, they are handled just the same. In Linux case, some tasks run in-kernel to handle miscellaneous jobs. They are kernel jobs, not "system processes" however.

One big caveat: Text books on complex software products (compilers and operating systems are particularly egregious examples) tend to explain simplistic algorithms (often ones that haven't been used in earnest for half a century), because real world machines and user requirements are much too complex to be handled in some way that can be described in a structured, simple way. Much of a compiler is ad-hoc tweaks (particularly in the area of code optimization, the transformations are mostly the subset of possibilities that show up in practical use). In the case of Linux, most of the code is device drivers (mentioned in passing as device-dependent in operating system texts), and of this code a hefty slice is handling misbehaving devices, which do not comply to their own specifications, or which behave differently between versions of "the same device". Often what is explained in minute detail is just the segment of the job that can be reduced to some nice theory, leaving the messy, irregular part (almost) completely out. For instance, Cris Fraser and David Hanson in their book describing the LCC compiler state that typical compiler texts contain mostly explanations on lexical analysis and parsing, and very little on code generation. Those tasks are some 5% of the code of their (engineered to be simple!) compiler, and had negligible error rate. The complex part of the compiler is just not covered in standard texts.